Commentary on popular culture and society, from a (mostly) psychological perspective

Sunday, April 19, 2009

What could you and 25 "friends" accomplish?

I remember a while back, I read in a women's magazine about political activists who were out "saving the world." What struck me was something one of the activist's said: "I found out that me and 25 friends could make a difference in changing politics." I never forgot that. We often think it takes a big majority of people or a huge group to make a change. I think that's wrong. Most people don't care about politics and the truth is you and 25 friends can make a difference.

Take for instance, the Tea Party protests. Pajamas Media has the tally of attendees at over 600,000 and counting. How did all those people get there? Word of mouth but also friends bringing friends. When Glenn and I interviewed people at the Knoxville Tea Party, many said that their friends and family were there to support them. I remember how I felt last Wed. at the protest, like I was among friends, like-minded people who I didn't have to explain myself to. I felt the same way at CPAC --the crowd was accepting, kind and understood the concepts of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Our society allows liberals to treat conservatives like second class citizens because our culture and the media encourage it. But the culture is us and we accept it also. As Horowitz points out, conservative students will not fight back because they are too decent and tolerant. However, they are also afraid--that they will lose their ability to get their degree (I have seen this happen), their standing in the community and their privacy. How do we change this?

I'll start with a couple of suggestions. Get some of your friends and acquaintances and fight back--starting with the schools--those institutions that indoctrinate our students with liberal ideology, often with downright disregard or by simply omitting other points of view and information. Get a half dozen friends and attend your local school board meeting. These meetings are often on your local cable channel and the school board members are often sensitive to what is on there since the whole community can view it. If you notice things wrong in your school, speak up and tell them.

Call out the school board members by name and ask them what they are going to do about it. One example I heard recently was from a banker I know whose daughter was asked to attend an anti-war protest (it was in a college) to learn about political activism. His daughter did not want to go. The father went to the professor and told her to provide an alternative--a paper or something that did not require one to attend something against their will. At first, the professor refused and then relented, saying that she was just trying to teach about political activism. "Yes, but only about left-leaning politics," the banker said. The professor realized that this was true. Many professors won't be as flexible but pressure can help.

Another suggestion: show up at your Congressman's local town meetings with a half dozen friends and ask tough questions. He or she will notice or at least be uncomfortable.

That's a start in the fight against the culture of intolerant liberalism that only has room for one view. What other ways of changing the culture do my readers suggest?

Update: I added quotes around friends in the title to indicate (as commenter Ken Kraska did) that few of us have 25 actual friends. I sure don't as I am an introvert. However, I can round up people for a cause--I got over 500 to turn out for my film opening and hundreds for a local book signing. Perhaps the word friend here should be changed to acquaintances or like-minded people who believe in a similar cause.

Being an artist who is conservative narrows the list of friends considerably...add straight male and the list is made even more narrow; being an artist who is Christian narrows it further: being intelligent reduces the list of friend even more: in fact, these qualities make me a loner.

More, those of us who have kids in the "public" schools have to face a tough question of our own: whose future are we gambling when we attempt counterpressure against the leftist indoctrinators? Probably not our own.

Public schools generally can't throw anyone out for political beliefs--perhaps a liberal private school could. We are gambling more with our kids futures by not standing up and/or doing nothing or going along to get along. It is a mistake. And a family has the option of moving to an area where there are more conservatives who are more accepting of their beliefs. The left is entrenched from years of infiltrating these institutions. Conservatives must do the same and that may take persistance and time. But the alternative is worse.

More, those of us who have kids in the "public" schools have to face a tough question of our own: whose future are we gambling when we attempt counterpressure against the leftist indoctrinators? Probably not our own.Seems you are risking your childrens' future in two ways by not using counterpressure:

1. The policy/training you oppose goes unopposed, and therefore unchanged.

2. Your children learn to go along to get along--not to stand on principle.

Is their future brighter if they get in the right schools but learn all the wrong things?

Dear Dr. Helen,Yes, you can find liberal faculty but you can also find conservative faculty, and you can find faculty of both stripes whose lessons may not be helpful to an individual student. You can also find very inspiring faculty who know both their content and their pedagogy.

I find sweeping statements about liberal faculty "infiltrating" schools to be very disturbing, because it is an attack that developed out of select media stories on premier state schools, which have developed all sorts of new trends in teaching--some of which focus on issues that may be seen as "liberal." At nearly all schools in this area (Appalachia), conservative values are dominant.

I know the colleges in this region very well, and all of the private colleges have either religious, ethical, and / or civic mission statements. We pride ourselves on good teaching that makes a difference in students' lives. And we recognize that we have a variety of students in our classrooms (usually more conservative than liberal).

It's difficult to help adult students become critical thinkers, to analyze data, to interpret biased arguments, and to think for themselves. The key, though, is to have good, unbiased research. For instance, research into higher education shows that students are NOT influenced by their faculty--they are influenced by their peers. (This research is of particular interest to those who teach ethics, because research shows that faculty usually do not impact student's ethics but other factors.)

Instead of going to school meetings to chase phantom issues, spend time with your kids helping them to become widely educated, fair-minded, independent thinkers. This is the best thing that you can do with your time!

With so much gusto you assert that people like you have little impact on your students(yet you also claim you teach people to "think critically"). Simply put, show me the studies that say that you have no impact(and also show me the studies that say that you teach people to think critically).

After all, you wouldn't want me to belief you just because you're an authority(that is a fallacy after all) or that it's common belief among the professorate.

One example I heard recently was from a banker I know whose daughter was asked to attend an anti-war protest (it was in a college) to learn about political activism. His daughter did not want to go. The father went to the professor ... You lost me at "the father" ... You see, for these prescriptions to work, young women and young men must learn to find their own voices.

Not everyone has, or indeed would encourage, the "father the banker" to step in for a student (in a college). That's somewhat regressive, imo. Like "I am over 18 and want to be treated like an adult fully capable of enlisting in the military, consenting sexually, some libertarians would argue should be free to make choice about liquor/drugs/guns" yet when I have trouble in my classes .... "DADDDDDYYYYYY --- help!!!"

Maybe... maybe I could see the parent calling the teacher if it is a high school assignment. But even then, not really. I would encourage, educate and talk with my child about their options and the communication to be had with the authority figure in the classroom, but for Daddy the banker to work things out to make it easier for the student? No. And again, that analysis would be for a high school.

Let the young woman learn early on how she will react to a situation like that, say, in the workplace.

Or with other liberal profs in the classroom. (Of course they often try to shut the student down verbally; when there is honest disagreement, many professors feel threatened, as though they, not their poorly presented ideas, were being under attack.)

It will be good life practice and perhaps make her understand some of the difficulties women and conservatives can face in defending their ideas, especially those without parental resources to smooth the path.

You're right. The girl need to learn what it's like in the real world...

...she should of hired a lawyer.I know you're kidding, but ... how often in the entry-level jobs and non-elite universities and colleges do students indeed face biased authority figures, and face "injustice", and learn they simply can't afford running to a personal attorney every time such a situation presents itself.

Then what?

That's where the real-life skills kick in, and believe me, I suspect it's much much harder for those student voices to be heard if they come from a working-class student, and not a banker's (or professors') child.

Doesn't mean you roll over and keep quiet though. Just that you better have a back-up plan to face reality while you are pushing back against common injustices.

Even in the high school "captured" audience, there's an awful lot of maneuverable room for a "child" to learn to daily advocate for themselves. I agree with parents working to affect the curricula, and attending school board meetings, but let's not dis-empower the students too quickly by having the parents step in to fight their battles right away.

Again, in many working class places, I suspect the parents are working daily to fight such battles of their own.

"With so much gusto you assert that people like you have little impact on your students(yet you also claim you teach people to "think critically"). Simply put, show me the studies that say that you have no impact(and also show me the studies that say that you teach people to think"critically)."

Good point. Some studies point to professors being influential over the thinking processes of students, especially when it comes to economic and thus, political issues. For example, Ray Fisman and colleagues did studies of Yale law students and found:

These findings hint at the influence that powerful ideas may have in shaping how we see the world, even late in life. It's also a sobering message for teachers such as myself. The students in my classroom will venture forth into the world of business and management, carrying with them some of the viewpoints and attitudes that I choose to emphasize in my lectures. Students learn much more than the facts; what we choose to communicate to them is a responsibility not to be taken lightly.

Indeed. I hope nobody thinks I was saying either-or with the belief that professors influence beliefs.

I believe professors influence beliefs that have not been set in stone for students. Hence the reason why so many students get their economic beliefs from their professors, economics isn't something that's typically taught at a high school level(well, not well at least) and parents usually don't talk about it with their children(my own father is a rare exception to the rule, but he's an economist by training; I credit my father for my economic beliefs and the fact that I never fell for socialism like many of my fellow students).

Does that mean we might change our minds about things in the future? Of course we can. However, to unlearn then learn a new way of thinking is far harder than to just learn a way of thinking, in any subject, not just economics.

Do I have any empirical evidence? No. I'm merely telling my own observations.

Gawain,

Even though technically I was never taught according to the trivium and the quadrivium, I think it's one of the better models of a good generalist education out there. I had to go through the horrors of the public school system myself(even though I went to a fairly good one). I do believe it could possibly be refined into an even better system but I'm not quite sure where I would take it in this point of time.

I'd like to say that I believe that we, in western society, keep children infantized for way too long. Heck, most of my fellow college students are still in a semi-infantized state(hence, rampant narcissism; hence Freud saying it was the condition of never growing up).

"I do believe it could possibly be refined into an even better system but I'm not quite sure where I would take it in this point of time."

I'd like to point out this is a reference to the "trivium and the quadrivium" NOT the public schools. My own stance on the public schools is they're trying to do the impossible, and they're not doing it very well.

Well, RW, I wasn't taught under the Old School either. I went to public school also, but in the 70s it was hard. The high school curriculum I went through then was more rigorous than most college curriculums today.

I didn't even know about the trivium and quadrivium until I took a history and philosphy of education class for my teaching certificate. It was actually one of the more informative courses I ever took.

If you go back and look at the curriculums--reading assignments, grading standards, sample tests, etc.--from the early 1900s and compare them to today, you would be amazed. A high school diploma then would be the equivalent of a graduate degree today, and that's only at one of the truly elite (read private) schools.

So basically what I did was look at the reading lists, go the library and educate myself. Which really is the only way to do it these days.

The best book in this regard is Sister Miriam Joseph's The Trivium, by Paul Dry Books. For all of you home schoolers out there.

About a month ago, U.S. Representative Mark Schauer held a local meeting here. A Democrat, he had defeated the Republican incumbent in the recent election, and wanted to meet his constituents. I wanted to attend, but I had other business obligations that day. My father (age 76) attended. He asked me if I wanted him to asked Schauer any questions. I typed and printed the following. After my father read this, he received a standing ovation from young and old.

START QUOTATION

Throughout modern history, periods of recession and inflation have been preceded by large government spending and either taxation, borrowing money, printing money, or all three.

Throughout modern history, periods of economic growth have been preceded by government tax cuts.

Germany experienced economic hyper-inflation in the early nineteen twenties following huge government spending. The annual inflation rate was over a billion percent.

The United States experienced an economic depression and massive unemployment in the nineteen thirties which deepened and became protracted due to massive government spending and taxation.

Japan experienced an extended economic recession that lasted twelve years due to huge infusions of government stimulus money into their economy.

American President Kennedy reduced the marginal income tax rates which caused our economy to grow.

American President Reagan reduced the marginal income tax rates which pulled our economy out of recession, and then caused it to grow at the fastest rate in American history.

Russian President Putin restructured the tax system and reduced marginal income tax rates which caused their economy to grow at unprecedented rates in their history.

President Obama and the congressional democrats continually repeat the assertion that they won’t return to the failed tax cut policies of the past. Yet, throughout history, in America and in other countries around the globe, tax cuts have spurred economic growth and prosperity, while government stimulus spending has caused recessions, depressions, unemployment, inflation, and hyperinflation.

The democrat plan sounds dis-ingenuous and dishonest.

My two questions are:

Why are the democrats using economic principles that have always failed throughout history?

Why are the democrats avoiding economic principles that have always worked throughout history?

END QUOTATION

Schauer's response was, "I don't agree." This was predictable and expected. The crowd didn't like his response.

Helen is correct. This was an eye-opener for my father and me. We can accomplish a considerable amount if we remain calm and dispassionate (meaning don't go off of the emotional deep end like the liberals do), and if we employ our intellect as our primary tool. Let's share thoughts and ideas with our relatives, friends, and colleagues. Let's not keep them to ourselves. Shared ideas multiply. Isolated ideas remain stagnant. This can breed anger. The corrosive effects of unchannelled uncontrolled anger are counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating.

My father and I attended the tax day tea party at the capital in Lansing last Wednesday. I estimate that there were about 5,000 to 10,000 of us there. It was wonderful to be in the company of like-minded people.

There are more of us out there than we are aware of.

Many bloggers are crediting Helen with starting the "Going Galt" movement. I agree with them. She had an idea, then she shared it with all of us. The momentum is increasing. All of us must be "idea authors", not just followers of one or two (albeit great) ideas.

the culture of intolerant liberalism is no differenty than the cultyure of intolerant conservatism. After all, the conservatives have been in the saddle for a number of years, under Newt and Bush, so it is not as though conservatives have long suffered under liberals. In fact, liberals have been out of power for a number of years.

@fred said... the culture of intolerant liberalism is no differenty than the cultyure of intolerant conservatism. After all, the conservatives have been in the saddle for a number of years, under Newt and Bush, so it is not as though conservatives have long suffered under liberals. In fact, liberals have been out of power for a number of years._____________

A couple holes in your argument.

First, if you think conservatives have been in power, you are only thinking one dimensionally. In fact, I predicted we would move left under Bush and the Republican majority. Why? Because the left controlled the schools and universities, raising the next generations of voters. It controls most the media, indoctrinating the next generation of voters. It controls most the print media, to the point to where the New York Times (and countless other outlets) printed millions of Obama campaign pamphlets disgused as newspapers (under the guise of impartion journalism). It controls millions of one-issue entitlement voters. Not to mention, most republicans aren't conservatives anymore (it just gives the illusion conservatives are in charge).

Second, Bush isn't a conservative. I know that the left wants to think he is, so they can pin anything bad that happens on conservatism, but it just ain't so. Not to mention, he's far too tolerant of a person, and too willing to compromise with the left.

I know liberals like to think intolerant liberalism is no different tha intolerant liberalism, but the fact remains that I don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson and Newt Gingrich preach their values. When it comes to the liberalism of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, and now Barack Obama, I have to pay for it out of each check, as does everyone who doesn't agree with them.

There is absolutely no comparison between how conservatives and liberals go about pursuing their ideals. Conservaties preach it and fight a defensive battle politically. Liberals leglislate it, court order it, flunk students who don't adhere to it, shut down opposition through misnamed actions like "the Fairness Doctrine," etc.

Liberals have not been out of power for a number of years, they just want you to think that to avoid accountability.

You are very correct about 25 dedicated people being able to affect a lot of change. So correct, it would seem that you must have experience as a community organizer. In which case, I do hope you will consider running for President.

I see nothing wrong in the banker parent talking to the teacher, even at the college level. After all, he is paying the piper. It is quite likely that the girl talked to her prof; and it's quite likely that the prof insisted. What's the girl to do? Hire a lawyer or bring in her own 'expert'? She brought in her own and got the situation resolved to her liking. From that I conclude she understands negotiation and the concept of leverage; better yet, she sent her prof an unmistakable message: "I will use all the tools at my disposal to stymie your agenda."

That the tool is the girl's father does not make him less of a tool and it does not make her lacking in independence. No one would claim that a lawyer using an 'expert' on the witness stand is lacking in independence. It is a real world tactic and the girl should not be condemned for it.

'Intolerant conservatism'? What is that? Though President Bush is not conservative, he did leave Americans free to define 'sacrifice' post-9/11 and he did not require that we do that which we would consider injurious to ourselves.

The problem with liberals is that lacking any sort of absolute moral foundation they demand everyone be the same. That is intolerant. Conservatives do have an absolute moral foundation and prefer to abide by its tenets. That is not intolerance but consistency of belief and adherence to principle. It is the left that intolerantly demonizes and asserts its intolerance via judicial fiat.

@Helen said... 'Intolerant conservatism'? What is that? Though President Bush is not conservative, he did leave Americans free to define 'sacrifice' post-9/11 and he did not require that we do that which we would consider injurious to ourselves. _____________

Liberal translation: When conservatives speak of or live by a code that liberals don't like, conservatives are being intolerant. However, when liberals use laws, the courts, or any other mechanisms to force others to live by or finance their beliefs, they are in no way being intolerant.

I see nothing wrong in the banker parent talking to the teacher, even at the college level. After all, he is paying the piper. It is quite likely that the girl talked to her prof; and it's quite likely that the prof insisted. What's the girl to do?Is this the blog hostess, Helen Reynolds responding?

First, if she is in college, she's a woman. No "girl". Second, playing the Daddy card is silly at college. Even if he's picking up the tab.

She's not learning how to challenge the system, use her voice and express her beliefs. She's hiding behind her father's presumed power.

Poor girl'll never grow up if she doesn't get to use her own voice, and learn to exercise her options without calling in Daddy power.

It is a real world tactic and the girl should not be condemned for it.I wasn't condemning. And I'm starting to suspect it wasn't a very good school either. Community college, by chance?

Something tells me this young woman hadn't really reached independence age yet, but then sometimes the parents' money tends to have that effect -- the professional young tend to cling closely to parental skirts ... and wallets.

Betcha Sarah Palin didn't call in her Daddy power to pull her punches. Just sayin.

I graduated from SUNY Albany 10 years ago with a degree in history. Concerning the professors in my department, most acted as if any "intelligent" person would be liberal, and a few acted as if any "intelligent" person would be socialist. There was one -- count 'em, one -- professor who, when his name came up in conversation, I had had professors either sniff or roll their eyes that he was a "Republican," even though there was no pertinent reason for mentioning that.

I believe this kind of attitude is just par for the course in some departments -- the liberal arts and social sciences, especially.

"Our society allows liberals to treat conservatives like second class citizens because our culture and the media encourage it."

Especially when you live in Boulder. I truly believe it never occurs to Boulder liberals that the person standing in front of them might not have the same political beliefs that they do. Typical open minded liberals I guess.

I disagree with you. Essentially, it is the person who is paying the bill who has the actual clout at any college. If things go badly in a negotiation between a prof and student (who typically has no leverage), the end result could be a lawsuit. If so, it will bring in the payer, pop or mom. The payer is also the only one who can make a viable threat of that nature.

Why bother sending your child to college if you're not going to let them think and act for themselves? What parent would rob their child of a life like that?

Really, you have no confidence that your high school, or college age offspring can operate independently? That they are in need of "rescue" when they disagree with an assignment in a particular class?

Same hold true with their first jobs? They're just not ready to be independent yet, without "help"?

Don't you see that if you want to raise critical-thinking adults who affect change in this society, that as the adults you can't rob your children of these opportunities in their own lives to use their voices and actions to effect change.

As parents, you simply can't be there to "protect" them everyday from the evils of the liberal world, so for heaven's sake, equip them with their own tools and confidence to act independently -- Daddy just can't be everywhere smoothing the way for little girl, can he?

No wonder so many students can't handle a taste of freedom and personal responsibility these days. There's a difference between being a passenger and an experenced driver, afterall, and it comes through ....practice.

But once a driver, always a driver, I say. And look where you can get to once you've mastered the skills. It's worth it to let "girls and boys" grow up, I'd think, and only fair to give them the freedoms to live independently.

The banker's money might buy material possessions, but learning to live free and independently -- that's the richest gift we can offer the next generation. Shame on any parent who would steal that from their child, all in the name of "smoothing the path".

Btw, the Tea Party protestors all over the country actually had to pay for permits to 'protest.'

Paying the very government they were protesting.. to protest. Sorry, Helen and ladies/feminists and all forms of the grossly over-valued modern American female with your artificial sense of superiority.. we've been trying to tell you for decades that the word 'empower' means 'power given to you' - which of course means whovever 'gives' you that power can easily take it away.

You would've had thought at some point all these women would have actually looked up the definition of the very word they used every five seconds for decades and would have given it a second thought.

What's next? Tupperware Parties against bailouts?

Not to even mention the fact the already pathetically weak movement has already been highjacked by Fox style Republicans. So now it is being completely dismissed by Democrats as nothing more than 'racist rednecks' because they 'simply don't like a black man in the White House.'

Of course I would also like to point out the powerlessness of men in this country to do anything as well.

We as men have been systematically stripped of all our rights by feminists and all the rest of the women who stood by and did nothing for the last 20 years. Women's rights are nothing but rights taken away from men.

Take one half of the population's rights and away and you thought you could keep your own? I saw this coming a long, long time ago. Women are beginning to now get a taste of their own shit they have been spoon feeding.

We as men have already been feeling completely powerless and outraged by the government manipulation of our lives for the last 20 years- stripping us of everything through the divorce courts and psychotic American females. We are used as sperm donors and ATM machines. Instantly ejected with nothing than a 3-digit phone call, a restraining order and a massively evil and far reaching divorce court/child support system that dehumanizes us and strips us of our children and works as nothing more than a wealth/property/child transfer from men to women.

We as men don't even have the power to take back our own families, much less our country.. a country that because of all the above, we aren't feeling too motivated to save anyway.

Save a way of life and country that treats us like child molesting/violent rapists/deadbeat/idiots/scumbag/predators with the threat of a SWAT team on your front lawn every five seconds? Save a country where the women have become monsters in every sense of the word? I don't think so.

Being back in the area I was born and raised, and having played softball for years in local leagues, 25 friends isn't hard to assemble. What could we accomplish? Depends on how many kegs of beer are present.

Robert Heinlein once wrote a non-ficton book based on the principle that a few active people can make a difference. It's called "Take Back Your Government," and it's a really good read. A lot of his practical advice doesn't apply well today, as the party stuctures have changed, but philosohpically, it's very stimulating.

I am almost 40 and I have a good relationship with my parents and there are times when they still help me out. Only now, I help them out, some, too. When my kids are in college, I hope that they will be independent and solve their own problems. But if they encounter a problem that they can't solve or don't know how to solve, I hope they feel free to come to me for advice and/or help. I will then do what I can to help them solve their own problem but there may be times when a 50+ year old professional can make things happen that a 20 year old student can't.

First, if she is in college, she's a woman. No "girl". Second, playing the Daddy card is silly at college. Even if he's picking up the tab.And if she in fact had already gone to her professor and been told, "Either do what I assigned, or receive a zero."? I'm not saying that's what happened, but it HAS happened to others. But if it did, THEN what was she to do? Oh, and based on things I have read elsewhere, even the College Administration is not always a viable body to appeal to.

Her father makes a cheap (ie, free) form of leverage. If her father had not had the clout that being a banker did, it would have been different.

It wouldn't matter if it was one billion people paying for permits to stand around and bitch and hold signs- it does nothing at all- it's a joke and people see it as it really is today- completely passe. Protests are horribly outdated tactics from the 1960's.

Any man who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass like you do and knows what is really going on is a spokeman for men. Not tomention that the Truth speaks for itself. The Truth is something you don't really seem all that interested in.

"And if she in fact had already gone to her professor and been told, 'Either do what I assigned, or receive a zero.'? I'm not saying that's what happened, but it HAS happened to others. But if it did, THEN what was she to do? Oh, and based on things I have read elsewhere, even the College Administration is not always a viable body to appeal to."

Her dad hopefully coached her to talk first to her professor, then to the department head, then to the dean, then to the president/chancellor, and only intervened if she could not get satisfaction otherwise. I kind of doubt all of that happened if he only had to talk to the professor to get results.

My daughter is just about to graduate from college. I can't see her having taken any class where she could possibly have been expected to attend an anti-war protest - in fact, this is part of the reason why she chose to major in biology rather than English or history - but if she had, I think she could have handled it with our coaching. Or possibly have attended the protest with a sign of her own that her teacher wouldn't have cared for at all.

BTW, my daughter's freshman English teacher slammed the kids with a lot of feminist nonsense. She just rolled her eyes and got through it. But some people must have said something, b/c the next semester her friends said that she asked the class if they wanted to learn that stuff from a feminist perspective, they said "no", and she dialed it way back. Professors are people too, with their own blind spots. I think you have to give them a chance to hear your complaint and straighten up before you go over their head to daddy, or the dean, or whomever.